Context:
The Supreme Court of India has applied a ‘hierarchy of participation’ framework under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) to differentiate the culpability of accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case, triggering debate on preventive detention, dissent, and civil liberties.
Key Highlights:
- Judicial Reasoning & Bail Outcomes
- The Court distinguished accused based on levels of involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
- Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam were denied bail, while Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa-ur-Rehman, Mohd. Saleem Khan, and Shadab Ahmed were granted bail with strict conditions.
- Reliance was placed on Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which requires only a prima facie assessment of accusations at the bail stage.
- Interpretation of Terrorism Provisions
- The Court adopted a broad interpretation of “terrorist act” under Section 15, including acts threatening disruption of essential services.
- The prosecution argued that protests were part of a coordinated design using protest networks and digital communication platforms.
- Civil Liberties & Due Process Concerns
- Prolonged incarceration of some accused — nearly five years without trial — raises concerns about irreversible personal and social harm.
- The editorial highlights the risk of UAPA being used beyond core counter-terrorism objectives, potentially chilling dissent and the right to protest.
- Trial delays due to pending charge framing and extensive witness lists underline systemic inefficiencies.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- UAPA: India’s primary anti-terror legislation allowing preventive detention.
- Section 43D(5): Restricts bail if accusations appear prima facie true.
- Section 15: Defines “terrorist act”, now interpreted expansively.
- Preventive Detention: Detention without trial to prevent future offences.
Relevant Mains Points:
- Polity & Constitution: Tension between state security and fundamental rights, especially Article 19 (freedoms).
- Internal Security: Broad legal interpretations may enhance state capacity but risk overreach.
- Social Justice: Extended undertrial detention disproportionately affects youth and marginal voices.
- Judicial Role: Courts act as key arbiters balancing liberty with security.
- Way Forward:
- Ensure expeditious trials and rationalisation of witness lists.
- Develop clearer judicial standards to distinguish dissent from terrorism.
- Strengthen safeguards against misuse of preventive detention laws while preserving national security.
UPSC Relevance:
- GS 2: Polity, fundamental rights, judicial processes
- GS 3: Internal security, counter-terrorism laws
- Ethics & Governance: Balance between authority and accountability